memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Beta:Pages for deletion/Ikat'ika
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *To vote simply add "Delete", "Keep", "Neutral". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an admin will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Canon only subject. --8of5 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Votes *''Neutral'' --8of5 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) *''Keep'' --Dr. John Smith 10:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC) *''Keep'' --Darth Batrus 12:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) *''Keep'' on the basis of the CCG card. -- Captain MKB 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Discussion Ikat'ika has a card in the ST:CCG range, meaning that he appears in a licensed product and warrants a page here, per pre-established articles. --Dr. John Smith 10:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC) :Almost everything canon has a CCG card. I don't think that can really justify inclusion unless some detail given on the card adds something non-canon. No more than we should pluck everything completely canon out of the Encyclopedia or Chronology. --8of5 10:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ::The card says he has knowledge in biology and anthropology, will that do. Besides having a card in the CCG is no different to having a reference in a novel. For instance, Kamala appeared in one episode and has (next to) no chance of appearing again, but the reference means she warrants an article. Is this really that different, CCG is a licensed medium like any other. --Dr. John Smith 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) :::Well it's a rather feeble addition to the page, but yes I suppose that would qualify as a snippet of non-canon info. But no I don't think the CCG should be considered equal to novels, comics or games. It is very strongly based on canon, like I said it's more comparable to the Encyclopedia or Chronology, and we should be wary of accepting every aspect of such sources as that opens the door to hundreds or canon only articles we shouldn’t have here just because they got listed in the Encyclopedia or got their picture on a card with a sentence of text that adds absolutely nothing to the non-canon info purpose of this site. This is a bit like the collectable issue, action figures are also licensed Star trek products but we shouldn’t be having the likes of “Spock was a male Vulcan with 14 points of articulation” either. --8of5 11:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ::::Good point, I suppose. Its a shame that in the beginning, Memory Alpha accepted both canon and licensed articles and additions like Wookieepedia, and kept it all under one roof. It would make things easier in the long-run, rather than one which only accepts canon, and another that accepts licensed and canon (if there are licensed references). Oh well (-: --Dr. John Smith 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC) :::::It's a shame but does make sense, Star Wars' expanded universe is much more integral to that universe than Star Trek's non-canon fiction. --8of5 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ::Even if someone or something only appeared in one card and one episode, I still think it makes them relevant to both canon and non-canon -- meaning they deserve an article here. If anyone feels that small articles are falling through the cracks and need to be sourced, then they should be marked as stubs, or marked with a citation notice, or possibly marked with another tag that signifies that the article is incomplete. -- Captain MKB 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC) :In this case yes the CCG had something, however small, to add. But do you thing if a CCG card adds nothing, no non-canon information what so ever (eg. Person X - ''Person x was a who '') we should be accepting articles on the basis that it had a card? Despite that card being 100% canon only information? We have a purpose, a purpose that means we are separate from MA, if we let being on a CCG (and that card adding nothing) be a reason to get onto our database then we'll end up with hundreds of articles which are canon only info that should be on MA, not here. :We found a reason to keep this article, that's a good thing. Someone has to highlight when articles that might not be relevant here appear. If we can find a reason for them to stay that's excellent, if we don’t then we get rid of them. --8of5 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ::Noted, and somewhat agreed, but also keep in mind that even the CCGs that have the least information possible still offer new insight into characters -- even if its just noting a skill in biology that might not be known in canon. Rare will be the case where a canon character who has a card or action figure is not expanded upon in some manner by said collectible. -- Captain MKB 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC) :::Also noted :) --8of5 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Admin resolution Keeping article, per vote. --Dr. John Smith 12:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)